Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gfunk" data-source="post: 128761" data-attributes="member: 1813">Well guys, I think I've solved our problem.&nbsp; Thanks to hong we have the following quote:&quot;Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (although they are not spells, and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance.&quot; [MM p.7] Soooooooo . . . in other words SLAs &quot;... work just like spells ...&quot; but &quot;... they are not spells ...&quot;This is quite a self-contradicting load of bullsh*t.SLAs are LIKE spells in that:a) They can be disrupted with damage and/or failed Concentration checksb) They use the same formula for saves (with regard to DC and caster level)c) They can be Spellcrafted (albeit with penalites for lack of components)d) They cease to function in an anti-magic fielde) They are subject to SRSLAs are NOT LIKE spells in that:a) They cannot be counter-spelled or used to counter-spellb) They require no components----------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, quite simply if you WANT to argue that Feeblemind knocks out SLAs, simply quote that SLAs, &quot;... work just like spells ...&quot;On the other side, simply point out that SLAs &quot;... are not spells ...&quot;Clear as mud!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad&nbsp; &nbsp; :mad:"&nbsp; data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> I think we should chalk this thread up to poor writing in the core books on the topic at hand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gfunk, post: 128761, member: 1813"] Well guys, I think I've solved our problem. Thanks to hong we have the following quote: "Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (although they are not spells, and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance." [MM p.7] Soooooooo . . . in other words SLAs "... work just like spells ..." but "... they are not spells ..." This is quite a self-contradicting load of bullsh*t. SLAs are LIKE spells in that: a) They can be disrupted with damage and/or failed Concentration checks b) They use the same formula for saves (with regard to DC and caster level) c) They can be Spellcrafted (albeit with penalites for lack of components) d) They cease to function in an anti-magic field e) They are subject to SR SLAs are NOT LIKE spells in that: a) They cannot be counter-spelled or used to counter-spell b) They require no components ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, quite simply if you WANT to argue that Feeblemind knocks out SLAs, simply quote that SLAs, "... work just like spells ..." On the other side, simply point out that SLAs "... are not spells ..." Clear as mud!:mad: I think we should chalk this thread up to poor writing in the core books on the topic at hand. [/QUOTE]

Verification